Pharmacist sues former employer, Walgreen's

This is a discussion on Pharmacist sues former employer, Walgreen's within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; CEOs and board members don't care about safety in their company stores. However, you can bet your bottom dollar they have all the security anyone ...

Stop going to Walgreens...? Nope, can't do that...store is a half block from home and does not mind that I OC inside the store. I'll wager that most food stores and pharmacies in Arizona allow OC in store.

My prediction: The bottom line in this case will be that this guy violated his contract with Walgreens, and there is no superseding federal or state law to save the day.

My Prediction: Walgreen infringed on the "states rights" of the citizen to defend himself. Since it's a civil suit now, I predict the jury will see things his way and award him a large sum of money. He's seen as a hero by his statesmen.

I thought it was interesting when I saw this on the news, because right along with this discussion they brought up and showed a report where 4 Walgreens employees were shot and killed because someone came into steal narcotics. And they were pointing out how Walgreens policy sure didn't help them any. I had to applaud the News station for doing that.

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers --- Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

However he agreed to his employers policies when he accepted the job and so must accept the consequences.

I disagree with Walgreen's stance on his actions, but the only way to fight it is to TELL Walgreen's and vote with your wallet.

This is the crux of the issue: he knowingly violated company policy and now he trying to keep from paying the price. I, too, think the policy is wrong, but good policy or bad has no bearing on this case. Walgreen's will win this lawsuit, as they should in this case.

However he agreed to his employers policies when he accepted the job and so must accept the consequences.

I disagree with Walgreen's stance on his actions, but the only way to fight it is to TELL Walgreen's and vote with your wallet.

Absolutely agree. Sometimes doing the right thing has negative consequences. Walgreen's in effect is arguing that it would be far better if the employee were killed than violate Walgreen's policy. A tough argument from the point of the employee. However, from a technical contract perspective, Walgreen's is right.

An employer that puts its "self image" ahead of employee safety isn't worth working for anyway. If more of the general workforce thought this way, company "policies" wouldn't be as bad as they are now.

An employer that puts its "self image" ahead of employee safety isn't worth working for anyway. If more of the general workforce thought this way, company "policies" wouldn't be as bad as they are now.

It's seldom, if ever, about "self-image." It's all about liability and insurance cost. Allowing employees to carry raises insurance rates substantially. I discussed this with a friend in another state and he advised me that his liability premium would triple if he allowed employees to carry on the premises. As much as he wanted to do it, he simply couldn't afford to.

People tend to forget that when an employer allows an employee to carry, the majority of the time that employer is responsible for the conduct of the employees; said employee shoots someone, even in a righteous shoot, and the company will be named in any civil lawsuit. It only takes one losing such suit to end any future insurance coverage.

An employer that puts its "self image" ahead of employee safety isn't worth working for anyway. If more of the general workforce thought this way, company "policies" wouldn't be as bad as they are now.

My guess is that they're more worried about employees accidentally shooting bystanders or even being sued by robber or their relatives.